Section 319 CrPC supports summoning additional accused on face-value evidence, and revision will not interfere without legal error.

Section 319 CrPC permits summoning additional accused where the material before the court, taken at face value, discloses their involvement in the offence. A dying declaration naming the appellants, supported by prosecution witnesses alleging threats and participation in conduct leading to the deceased's suicide, was sufficient to justify their summoning as additional accused. Revisional interference was unwarranted because the trial court had considered the available evidence and no legal error or jurisdictional infirmity was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants could be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the dying declaration and the statements of prosecution witnesses. (ii) Whether the revisional court was justified in declining interference with the order summoning the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants could be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the dying declaration and the statements of prosecution witnesses.

Analysis: The dying declaration named the appellants along with the principal accused as persons responsible for the deceased's death. The prosecution witnesses also supported the allegation that the appellants had threatened to defame the deceased and had joined the course of conduct leading to her suicide. At the stage of Section 319, the court is concerned with whether the material before it discloses the commission of an offence and whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed against persons not initially charge-sheeted. The power under Section 319 is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, but it can be invoked when the material, taken at face value, shows involvement of additional persons.

Conclusion: The appellants were validly summoned as additional accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court was justified in declining interference with the order summoning the appellants.

Analysis: The trial court had considered the available evidence, including the dying declaration and the statements recorded after cross-examination, and had exercised its discretion to summon the appellants. No legal principle was shown to have been violated, and the material on record was sufficient to sustain the view that an offence was disclosed. In these circumstances, revisional interference was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The revisional court was justified in refusing to interfere.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order summoning the appellants as additional accused was sustained, and no interference was called for in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may exercise power under Section 319 on the basis of material that, taken at face value, discloses the involvement of additional persons in the offence, and such an order will not be interfered with in revision unless it suffers from legal error or jurisdictional infirmity.

---